#IStandWithAhmed (or Inventing While Muslim is a thing?)

[barbos]

Who said anything about shooting people?

Nobody, but with all recent police news and you mentioning fleeing police just wanted to know what you mean by not fleeing being reason for not being arrested.

and his engineering teacher could have easily verified that what he'd built was a time-keeping device and nothing more.

"build" is a strong word here. I think all his engineering teacher could verify is that he made a pretty good imitation of a bomb.

If it had been a pretty good imitation of a bomb, it would have included a pretty good imitation of an explosive substance. But since it lacked imitation plastic explosive, imitation fertilizer + imitation diesel fuel, or some such component, it just looked like an electronic gadget that keeps track of time.

It was not excellent imitation, just pretty good.

He had apparently no criminal record, no history of making threats.

Do we know that for sure?

Yes.

I need more than that.

 

[barbos]

ANYTHING can be perceived to pose a threat. Their rule is functionally equivalent to "The campus may not exist; or, where it does exist, must not contain any physical objects of any kind".

With the same criteria that leads to the disassembled clock 'looking like a bomb," they'd better suspend every kid wearing shoes since some actually did make a shoe bomb.

Now you are being ridiculous.

 

[bilby]

With the same criteria that leads to the disassembled clock 'looking like a bomb," they'd better suspend every kid wearing shoes since some actually did make a shoe bomb.

Now you are being ridiculous.

Not at all - the policy is ridiculous, he is just demonstrating how ridiculous it is.

 

[barbos]

Now you are being ridiculous.

Not at all - the policy is ridiculous, he is just demonstrating how ridiculous it is.

Policy may be ridiculous but your arguments are ridiculous too.

 

[bilby]

Not at all - the policy is ridiculous, he is just demonstrating how ridiculous it is.

Policy may be ridiculous but your arguments are ridiculous too.

How so? I am simply pointing out that either there is a zero tolerance policy, with no interpretation allowed; or there is not.

If interpretation is allowed, then the failure to apply discretion in this case is inexcusable.

But the authorities in this case say no interpretation is allowed.

If no interpretation is allowed, then the application of discretion to other ridiculous possibilities - such as shoe bombs - is inexcusable.

What part of that description of the ridiculous policies, is itself ridiculous?

 

[laughing dog]

Policy may be ridiculous but your arguments are ridiculous too.

How so? I am simply pointing out that either there is a zero tolerance policy, with no interpretation allowed; or there is not.

If interpretation is allowed, then the failure to apply discretion in this case is inexcusable.

But the authorities in this case say no interpretation is allowed.

Which is an outright lie on their part. A baseball bat, pencil, pen or even finger can be a weapon but no one is suspended for bringing those to school.

 

[bilby]

How so? I am simply pointing out that either there is a zero tolerance policy, with no interpretation allowed; or there is not.

If interpretation is allowed, then the failure to apply discretion in this case is inexcusable.

But the authorities in this case say no interpretation is allowed.

Which is an outright lie on their part. A baseball bat, pencil, pen or even finger can be a weapon but no one is suspended for bringing those to school.

Which is exactly what I have been saying.

And you seem to think that my saying exactly that is 'ridiculous'.

 

[laughing dog]

Which is an outright lie on their part. A baseball bat, pencil, pen or even finger can be a weapon but no one is suspended for bringing those to school.

Which is exactly what I have been saying.

And you seem to think that my saying exactly that is 'ridiculous'.

Not me. I thought I was buttressing that point of yours.

 

[bilby]

Which is exactly what I have been saying.

And you seem to think that my saying exactly that is 'ridiculous'.

Not me.

Sorry, my bad.

 

[barbos]

Once again, that thing looked like an imitation of a suit-case bomb, Engineering teacher implied exactly that when he said "Don't show it to anyone"
And if someone does not see that then he is probably living in a cave without any exposure to TV.
I don't see anything wrong with school banning items which may look like an actual weapon.
The only question in tis story is question of intent, and so far it seems intent was to impress his teacher with this stupid "clock in a case" thing. The keyword here is "stupid", because it was in fact stupid and when people do stupid things other people often get confused, and that's what happened here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

ANYTHING can be perceived to pose a threat. Their rule is functionally equivalent to "The campus may not exist; or, where it does exist, must not contain any physical objects of any kind".

With the same criteria that leads to the disassembled clock 'looking like a bomb," they'd better suspend every kid wearing shoes since some actually did make a shoe bomb.

Shoes?

Are you forgetting about the underwear bomber?

They all have to go to school naked!

 

[Underseer]

Once again, that thing looked like an imitation of a suit-case bomb, Engineering teacher implied exactly that when he said "Don't show it to anyone"
And if someone does not see that then he is probably living in a cave without any exposure to TV.
I don't see anything wrong with school banning items which may look like an actual weapon.
The only question in tis story is question of intent, and so far it seems intent was to impress his teacher with this stupid "clock in a case" thing. The keyword here is "stupid", because it was in fact stupid and when people do stupid things other people often get confused, and that's what happened here.

Ever built a homemade electronic device?

If you do, you're going to have to put it all in some kind of container.

If you intend to bring it from home to school, it makes sense to build it in a case that can be used for transport.

This is not significantly different from countless homemade devices made by countless amateur engineers, yet strangely most of them don't get arrested.

Besides, you are completely ignoring the fact that none of the teachers nor cops behaved at all in the way one would behave if they believed someone brought a bomb to school. They did not attempt to evacuate the school. They did not call the bomb squad. They kept the student and the "bomb" in an office with administrators, then put the student and the "bomb" in a squad car with a police officer. That simply isn't what people do when they believe there is a bomb at a school full of children.

So no. It is not reasonable to assume that it was a bomb, and none of the teachers nor cops actually thought that it was a bomb.

 

[barbos]

Once again, that thing looked like an imitation of a suit-case bomb, Engineering teacher implied exactly that when he said "Don't show it to anyone"
And if someone does not see that then he is probably living in a cave without any exposure to TV.
I don't see anything wrong with school banning items which may look like an actual weapon.
The only question in tis story is question of intent, and so far it seems intent was to impress his teacher with this stupid "clock in a case" thing. The keyword here is "stupid", because it was in fact stupid and when people do stupid things other people often get confused, and that's what happened here.

Ever built a homemade electronic device?

Yes, unlike this boy I actually did build electronic devices.

If you do, you're going to have to put it all in some kind of container.

If you intend to bring it from home to school, it makes sense to build it in a case that can be used for transport.
This is not significantly different from countless homemade devices made by countless amateur engineers, yet strangely most of them don't get arrested.

Oh, it is significantly different, first of all he did not make it and secondly it does look like imitation of homemade timer bomb.

Besides, you are completely ignoring the fact that none of the teachers nor cops behaved at all in the way one would behave if they believed someone brought a bomb to school.

This is fucking ridiculous, how many times you need to be told that nobody suggested that anyone thought it was an actual bomb.
It is you who are completely and intentionally ignoring.

They did not attempt to evacuate the school. They did not call the bomb squad. They kept the student and the "bomb" in an office with administrators, then put the student and the "bomb" in a squad car with a police officer. That simply isn't what people do when they believe there is a bomb at a school full of children.

So no. It is not reasonable to assume that it was a bomb, and none of the teachers nor cops actually thought that it was a bomb.

You are fucking ridiculous. You completely ignored what I said in my post while replying.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Once again, that thing looked like an imitation of a suit-case bomb, Engineering teacher implied exactly that when he said "Don't show it to anyone"

So it looked like a fake bomb? And the boy never said it was a bomb. He maintained it was a clock. So it was never thought to be a bomb or a hoax bomb? So what are you defending?

And if someone does not see that then he is probably living in a cave without any exposure to TV.

It looked like a TV Bomb? You really are not helping your case.

I don't see anything wrong with school banning items which may look like an actual weapon.

Is that all that happened here? the school simply banned items that look like weapons?

The only question in tis story is question of intent, and so far it seems intent was to impress his teacher with this stupid "clock in a case" thing. The keyword here is "stupid", because it was in fact stupid and when people do stupid things other people often get confused, and that's what happened here.

You are half right. this is a question of intent. And the intent seemed to be for adults to harass and bully a brown boy who doesn't pray in the right church.

 

[RavenSky]

I'm pretty sure that every time keeping device that I have ever seen in my life has been inside some sort of container. I suppose it would not have to be; but as noted above, it would make it more difficult to move it anywhere.

ETA - I thought of one... sundials. But those are usually not transported.

 

[ApostateAbe]

 

[barbos]

So it looked like a fake bomb? And the boy never said it was a bomb. He maintained it was a clock. So it was never thought to be a bomb or a hoax bomb? So what are you defending?

And if someone does not see that then he is probably living in a cave without any exposure to TV.

It looked like a TV Bomb? You really are not helping your case.

I don't see anything wrong with school banning items which may look like an actual weapon.

Is that all that happened here? the school simply banned items that look like weapons?

The only question in tis story is question of intent, and so far it seems intent was to impress his teacher with this stupid "clock in a case" thing. The keyword here is "stupid", because it was in fact stupid and when people do stupid things other people often get confused, and that's what happened here.

You are half right. this is a question of intent. And the intent seemed to be for adults to harass and bully a brown boy who doesn't pray in the right church.

We are running in circles, you are asking the same stupid questions which have been answered many times.
I suggest you reading the thread before commenting.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

So it looked like a fake bomb? And the boy never said it was a bomb. He maintained it was a clock. So it was never thought to be a bomb or a hoax bomb? So what are you defending?It looked like a TV Bomb? You really are not helping your case.

I don't see anything wrong with school banning items which may look like an actual weapon.

Is that all that happened here? the school simply banned items that look like weapons?

The only question in tis story is question of intent, and so far it seems intent was to impress his teacher with this stupid "clock in a case" thing. The keyword here is "stupid", because it was in fact stupid and when people do stupid things other people often get confused, and that's what happened here.

You are half right. this is a question of intent. And the intent seemed to be for adults to harass and bully a brown boy who doesn't pray in the right church.

We are running in circles, you are asking the same stupid questions which have been answered many times.
I suggest you reading the thread before commenting.

the questions are not stupid. Evidently they are quite hard as you seem unable to answer them.

 

[Jayjay]

Policy may be ridiculous but your arguments are ridiculous too.

How so? I am simply pointing out that either there is a zero tolerance policy, with no interpretation allowed; or there is not.

If interpretation is allowed, then the failure to apply discretion in this case is inexcusable.

But the authorities in this case say no interpretation is allowed.

If no interpretation is allowed, then the application of discretion to other ridiculous possibilities - such as shoe bombs - is inexcusable.

What part of that description of the ridiculous policies, is itself ridiculous?

I don't know what barbos thought, but my first impression was that it adds another layer of indirection. A fake bomb would be e.g. a clock made to look like a bomb. A fake shoe bomb would be a show made to look like a bomb made to look like a shoe again. That's what makes it a ridiculous analogy.

 

[Jayjay]

Once again, that thing looked like an imitation of a suit-case bomb, Engineering teacher implied exactly that when he said "Don't show it to anyone"
And if someone does not see that then he is probably living in a cave without any exposure to TV.
I don't see anything wrong with school banning items which may look like an actual weapon.
The only question in tis story is question of intent, and so far it seems intent was to impress his teacher with this stupid "clock in a case" thing. The keyword here is "stupid", because it was in fact stupid and when people do stupid things other people often get confused, and that's what happened here.

Ever built a homemade electronic device?

If you do, you're going to have to put it all in some kind of container.

If you intend to bring it from home to school, it makes sense to build it in a case that can be used for transport.

This is not significantly different from countless homemade devices made by countless amateur engineers, yet strangely most of them don't get arrested.

Besides, you are completely ignoring the fact that none of the teachers nor cops behaved at all in the way one would behave if they believed someone brought a bomb to school. They did not attempt to evacuate the school. They did not call the bomb squad. They kept the student and the "bomb" in an office with administrators, then put the student and the "bomb" in a squad car with a police officer. That simply isn't what people do when they believe there is a bomb at a school full of children.

So no. It is not reasonable to assume that it was a bomb, and none of the teachers nor cops actually thought that it was a bomb.

Nobody ever claimed that they thought it was a bomb. Only thing what was claimed was that it was a "hoax bomb", or part of a bomb.